Talk:Douglas Murray (author)/Archive 2

Sub-headings
What do you have against sub-headings? They make a long section that looks like a "wall of words" easier to read and navigate. Please explain.FairlyFlatFoot (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A bit more important than sub-headings, is that this text employs a mixture of selective and inaccurate use of the sources - ironical since the whole spat is about alleged selective use of quotes from a Roger Scruton interview:

In 2019, Murray spent weeks urging New Statesman journalist George Eaton and editor Jason Cowley to share the original recording of an interview between Eaton and Sir Roger Scruton, with Murray branding the published interview, which attributed a number of controversial statements to Scruton, as "journalistic dishonesty". Murray eventually managed to acquire the recording, which formed the basis of an article defending Scruton, arguing that his remarks had been misinterpreted. The New Statesman subsequently apologised for Eaton's misrepresentation.

Actually the most important thing is that the NS partially apologised only for its journalist selectively quoting Scruton in tweets, - not in the NS article, which it appeared to stand by. "After its publication online, links to the article were tweeted out together with partial quotations from the interview – including a truncated version of the quotation regarding China above. We acknowledge that the views of Professor Scruton were not accurately represented in the tweets to his disadvantage. We apologise for this, and regret any distress that this has caused Sir Roger".

Murray's article is mainly about "accusation & trial by tweet", rather than a criticism of Eaton, though he does think Eaton was less than wholly fair, (though ironically the "weeks of urging" by Murray, were done on twitter). The Gdn article relates all this but is also concerned with asking how Spectator obtained the interview recording.

I'm sorry, this all seems very 'dog bites man' stuff. One journal selectively quoted Scruton perhaps, DM described the interview as 'dishonest', (before he had actually heard it), he then obtained the recording by dubious means which partially vindicated Scruton and DM. So what? Pincrete (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Views need expanding and edits being taken away instantly and accused of "warring"
I think Murray's views should be separated given the variety of subjects he has commentated on (Islam, immigration, Brexit and the New Statesman controversy) even if each section is kept brief. Other commentators and authors have separate sections for their beliefs (Roger Scruton's page being an example). I believe Islam and immigration should be combined under one section as the "Islam" section currently contains references to his views on immigration ie in his book and the Oxford Union debate, and Murray has intertwined both at times. The summary on The Strange Death of Europe seems biased as it relies on quotes from an unfavourable review which imply Murray is supportive or sympathetic to the English Defense Leage and PEGIDA. Murray has never supported PEGIDA or EDL in the book or otherwise, indeed he calls them and Tommy Robinson secondary problems in reaction to the primary problem of Islamism (which the Islam section did at one point highlight). The Islam section itself seems very simplistic or misleading compared to how it used to be and ignores other commentary he has made on the subject, such as his views on the Charlie Hebdo attack and Islam and freedom of speech (see "edit history" or "search" for additions I tried making). With all due respect, I've also found it frustrating that edits I've made to do with this are dismissed as "warring" as I explained the nature of the changes I'd made in the edit summary, I have only edited Murray's page twice at separate times and never to engage in a conflict. Warring was not the intention yet the edits were undone instantly seemingly without any consideration for what I had written in the summary. The edits I made were to simply to expand on his views and were done in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD115 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Self-sourced"
, the statement about the death threats is not in Murray's voice. It is stated as fact by The Times. The Foucault detail could be closer to the source in the form of a quote, but, as the source states, Foucault "comes up a lot" in Murray's book, so it is DUE to include something in the article about Murray's views on him. Please explain your removal. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't read the full Times source, but from what is open-access, it looks like it's summarizing the remarks that he makes in the interview. Kearns is a polemic conservative op-ed writer who is neither RS for the contents of Murray's book nor anything else. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is stated as fact by The Times, which is a RS. Sources do not have to be open access. I still do not see your rationale for removal. I am not up-to-date on RSN discussions about National Review or Kearns, could you link the one(s) that states this? Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Saying Murray has written about Foucault would be pointlessly vague, but that's all the source really supports as a secondary source. That would only work is we accepted this softball interview is usable for this kind of thing, which we should not.


 * Using this obscure interview question as a justification for adding yet more of Murray's opinions is not appropriate. Further, as an attempted summary of Murray's critique, there are a lot of additional problems. It's not clear that this is a fair summary of the interview, nor it is clear this position is a significant (or even accurate) summary of Foucault. Yes, the guy who coined "Biopower" was very interested in power. Presenting this as an obsession is not wrong, but it is facile, and without a reliable source, there is no reason to think Murray's hot take is encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not write that summary, that was . As I said, it could be closer to the source in the form of a quote. This is not being added to Foucault's article, but to Murray's article, where Murray's views are relevant. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Surely not all of Murray's views belong in the article. This source is weak for this purpose. Even setting aside the outlet, Kearns says nothing of substance on this specific view, and Murray's response is primary. If there is a reliable source explaining why Murray's view of Foucault is encyclopedically significant to Murray (or Foucault), we would summarize what that source says, and we could then use this source to fill-in details, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing adding all of Murray's views about everything to the article. In this case, the source states Foucault is frequently mentioned in Murray's book, so it seems relevant to include something. (As I said above, I am not up-to-date on the RSN discussions about the publication or the author so please link relevant discussions.) OTOH, anyone who knows of Foucault and of Murray will likely be able to guess the latter's view of the former, and there is nothing ground-breaking in that portion of that interview, so I am fine with leaving it out unless other sources find it to be notable. The detail about the death threats is stated as fact by The Times, however, so I am not sure why it was removed. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request 8-NOV-2019
EDITION REQUEST:

Information to be added or removed: Removing picture "Douglas Murray 2018.png" and adding "DouglasMurray2019.jpg" instead.

Explanation of issue: The referenced picture (DouglasMurray2019.jpg) is more recent and hence a more accurate depiction of the author's current image. Other than that, the author has already posted this image on different social media channels, including twitter, so it is already public. The picture was taken by photographer Andy Ngo by Mr. Murray's request and all rights belong to Mr. Murray, who has authorized the usage of the image for this site and for the public in general. By modifying the picture, the author does not have any sort of commercial intents, but simply that of updating it to a picture that is more recent and that he feels more comfortable with as a representation of his character.

References supporting change: https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/photo

COI DISCLAIMER: For reference I do have a professional connection with Mr. Murray, however the aforementioned request does not benefit him or myself in monetary or commercial terms, but it is simply a manifestation of the author's will regarding the display of his image.

MariaDelgadoDKM (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 09-NOV-2019
Regards, Spintendo  23:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The file DouglasMurray2019.jpg has been deleted and is not available for use.

Review addition: Neoconservatism: Why we need it
On publications:

"In 2006, he published a defence of neoconservatism — Neoconservatism: Why We Need It — and made a speaking tour promoting the book in the United States."

Since no reviews are referenced for the publication the following could be added:

The publication was subsequently reviewed in the Arab journal Asharq al-Awsat by the notorious Iranian author Amir Taheri: "Whether one agrees with him or not Murray has made a valuable contribution to the global battle of ideas."

Source: https://eng-archive.aawsat.com/amir-taheri/interviews/neoconservatism-why-we-need-it

PSalva35 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Serious COI problems on this page
There is a massive number of SPA accounts that all have in common that they are adding obscure self-sourced (or personal unsourced) content about Murray, and edit-warring this content in. It's hard not to deduce that these are COI accounts, with an affiliation to Murray. These accounts are obviously the same for example:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FerroFerroFerro
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Geflopp
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Alijfrk44
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Grea_142_Fx
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MKEMPX4
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hikinghytch
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/KaraMcKinney
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PSalva35

There is also unusually much activity by accounts that are adding updated pictures of Murray, which smell of COI. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have requested page protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, in relation to that request, it seems that someone representing the author may be trying to make corrections, in which case, per BLP, it's important not to shut them out, unless it becomes disruptive. Regarding the photograph, for example, if the author wants to change it, someone should help the account gain a release, then upload it to Commons. Ditto with any other reasonable requests. See WP:BLPEDIT. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which one of the above brand-new editors do you think represents Murray, and why? Have they identified themselves?  Have they made their identity known at OTRS? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given your comment above, presented without any evidence, please withdraw your rejection of my RfPP request and allow another admin to decide whether it's justified or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No admin will give you 30/500 protection in a situation like this, certainly not as a first resort.
 * Did you look at WP:BLPEDIT? "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. "
 * It does look as though Murray or his representatives have been trying to edit the article. Hence the concern about COI. It should be discouraged, but you need to find out what their concern is, and ideally try to engage with them (or one of them) on the talk page. SarahSV (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If one of the editors is Murray or Murray's rep, they need to make themselves known, and we can go from there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the semi-protection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * One of his representatives did make themselves known and wanted to change the photograph to File:DouglasMurray2019.jpg. So far as I can tell, they were given no help on this page (apologies in advance if I'm mistaken about that). Instead, a lower quality image is used. That kind of experience gives rise in BLP subjects to a sense of there being no point in becoming involved in a legitimate way. SarahSV (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a diff or link for that? I was away from editing in this subvject area for some months and am not aware of what you're referring to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the lede image with a headcrop of the highest resolution image of Murray from Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See the section directly above this one, and that account's contribs. Thanks for replacing the image. SarahSV (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know the details, but it appears that someone attempted to act on the request, but the image was -- for whatever reason, perhaps an OTRS issue -- not available at that time. I don't see any sign that the request was ignored, or that they were given "no help". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What appears to have been a pal of Murray's replaced the image, giving the edit reason "the previous image looks nothing like his persona, this picture portrays his image more precisely". I reverted the change, I thought, and continue to think that the new image is terrible - it is completely posed and unnatural and does not suggest a journalist/broadcaster/author. Beyond My Ken has improved on the original by cropping, but it remains wholly inappropriately artificial IMO. Pincrete (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Political pigeonholing in definition
Murray is clearly active on the "culture war" front, but that doesn't seem to be a reason to attempt to marginalise his writing or narrowly define it politically from the off.

At time of writing the current reference is a YouTube link which I've watched a few minutes of but can't see a backup for the claim he is right-wing, and even if he is to claim that seriously somewhere, its not obvious why it doesn't just belong in a subsequent information section, rather than in the definition of what he is (an author/writer).

I think also that youtube links are of limited acceptability as references - at the very least please add exactly where in the video it backs up this claim.

Failing that (or somebody clarifying here why it is standard practice with reference to Wiki guidelines or examples perhaps from the opposite side of the political spectrum) I'll remove the tag and regardless perhaps move the political pigeon-holing to a less contentious section. I note the conservative claim is already made in a more appropriate section so there is clear redundancy anyway.

TIA


 * You are quite right,, but please sign your posts.(Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.)I don't think Murray should be described, especially not in the first sentence of the lede, as a "right wing political commentator". And I agree that such a definition represents marginalization. Murray says in the linked-to YouTube video (found in the lede of the article) that "The political fact in this is the same thing it is this fear that these people who are around who have these ideas that absolutely aren't in lockstep with a particular dogma of the day, it's the other people are going to catch it, you know if we're not careful our kids will grow up not far left and then where will we be?" (That is found about one minute into the video.) Murray clearly is not right wing. He is for tolerance and open-mindedness. He references the "fear" that the "far left" seems to display. Anyway, the link provided does not support the labeling of Murray as "right wing". That source tells us to look at 7:28 in that video, which I did, and no surprise it does not support the characterization of Murray as "right wing". Bus stop (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks (and apologies) for the signature guidance, I'll try with this one. Yes, your comments pretty much reflect my observations as well. Conan The Librarian (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

“Right wing” is a definition the subject of the article accepts in press coverage and it is helpful to allow readers to put his work into context, but I can see you find it to be a definition you'd not like to be applied. I have no interest in pursuing this discussion further right now. Ambrosen (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * —you are using this as a source and saying see 7:28 in that source. What do you find at 7:28 supporting Murray being "right-wing"? You cannot say "I can see you find it to be a definition you'd not like to be applied". If it is applicable I would "like [it] to be applied". The problem is that the video does not support that application. Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * - you say “I don't think Murray should be described, […] as a "right wing political commentator". And I agree that such a definition represents marginalization.”, so I think it's reasonable for me to characterise what you're saying that way. Ambrosen (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * —conspicuously missing from this discussion is your explanation of 7:28 in the YouTube video. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Views on Wikipedia
I've added a short piece into the "Views" section on his recent public comments on Wikipedia. The transcription of the entire relevant section of the conversation is below.

I think this is a valid and relevant addition, and is in line with the existing content:
 * The "Views" section is a series of short statements on his public views on a variety of subjects of public interest, so this short "capsule" on Wikipedia fits the overall "feel"
 * It being relevant to Wikipedia, and being particularly pointed criticism on a matter of public interest, makes it relevant content
 * From the conversation (I've listened to the whole thing, not just this section), I think my interpretation is correct.

Transcription (starts at the 4 hour 28 minute mark)


 * Murray: We have to find a way through this - we have to find a way to not have timorous people. Or at least not to have everyone be timorous.


 * I noticed some years ago....there was an event in London where 5 people gave speeches, totally different fields - one was a biologist, one was a novelist, one was.... and it wasn't a particularly interesting evening, except for in one regard  - I think 3 or 4 of the 5 speakers at some point, if not at the beginning,  involved the speaker saying, "...and it's not what you read about me on the internet..."   And I just thought, "that's interesting"


 * Eric Weinstein: Well, this is the age of misportrayal


 * Murray: Because I had only heard of one of the speakers once before, and I actually said to one of them afterwards, "you know, we don't actually spend our time reading about you on the internet, we don't Google you."


 * The problem was they weren't on to nothing - which is that if you did put their name into the Internet, whatever comes up on the fallacious, totally appalling and abhorrent site Wikipedia, would include a load of untrue information about them which they were trying, like me, which they were trying to correct, and there's no mechanism to correct them, so a version of your life is put out there by this despicable company.


 * These people were afraid of one legitimate thing, and they had also all been suffering through the fact that this era which everyone pretended wasn't going to change everything, meant they were all, every day, imbibing criticism of themselves that before they would only have heard in a row, from somebody who knew them quite well and even then very rarely.   And they were all, sort of, I thought, sort of traumatised - and I think, to an extent, that in the same way that our era has imbibed a form of catastrophism about everything, we've imbibed this, we've imbibed the feeling that we are all being assaulted or assailed all the time, because we can't get off our damned phones.  And we are seeking out...it's self harm, it's self harm...we're seeking out people that don't like us, and listening to them...

Hank Stamper (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In the future, in order for this not to be a WP:COPYVIO, you should provide clear attribution when quoting sources, including on talk pages. I copied the source from the article for you, and adjusted formatting to make this even more clear.
 * I have also reverted the edit itself. A passing mention in an otherwise unreliable podcast is not a demonstration of significance. As I have said on this talk page before, we cannot include all of Murray's opinions, and we need reliable, independent sources to demonstrate why any individual opinion is significant. Am I reading it right that this podcast is almost five hours long? Obviously this podcast must include an awful lot of opinions, and it is not appropriate for editors to select which opinions belong here based on their own interpretation of them. That would be WP:OR. If you know of a reliable independent source which mentions Murray's opinion of Wikipedia, propose it here for discussion. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the note on attribution, which I'll be sure to do in the future but is somewhat academic now for this edit.

While I understand your argument on my edit, I don't agree.
 * I do agree that a couple of minutes discussion in a 5 hour podcast could be considered a passing mention (although I'm not sure what you mean by "an otherwise unreliable podcast"?). But the  discussion "section" that it's a part of takes up a fair piece of the conversation, and free speech, "cancellation" and the how the tenor of public debate is affected by the internet is both a matter a public significance and a recurring theme in Murray's work.
 * I'm not sure why Murray himself isn't considered a reliable source on Murray's opinions?
 * The podcast does "include an awful lot of opinions". But the vast majority are restatements or explorations of the opinions/views already mentioned in this section of his biography - so there's no point in restating them.  I can't see what point you're making with this - does the dross you have to sift to find a nugget make the gold less valuable?
 * I think my "interpretation" is the obvious meaning of what he said. My original use of the word "interpretation" was in its broadest possible context - it wasn't suggesting that one had to parse the passage closely to divine a possibly contested meaning.  The context makes it completely obvious what he's talking about, so there is no WP:OR issue.
 * I find it unusual that "Wikipedia" wouldn't be interested in the opinion of a major public intellectual on Wikipedia - particularly given that the view isn't an anodyne bromide, but is a sharp and very blunt criticism.
 * If this isn't of significance, are Murray's views on pandemic lockdown? His involvement with NGO Monitor?  It's a biographical piece about him - he liked fishing as a boy, but is that significant?  I understand that "two wrongs don't make a right", and you have been consistent on this point ("we cannot include all of Murray's opinions") but clarity on criteria would be helpful.
 * Wikipedia is, among other things, a cultural phenomenon and an important entity in its own right - does this clear a statement need a reference in The Guardian to make it noteworthy? If he said on the podcast, "all redheads should be executed", would that not be worthy of mention until it's reported in The Times?
 * And I may have missed it, but I can't find anything else you've "said on this talk page before"? CORRECTION - found the references on the archived Talk page.

No point in doing anything further, I'm really just sounding off. I first started making casual minor edits to Wikipedia pages 10-15 years ago - the increasingly arcane nature of the process being wielded by anonymous guardians is making it a pointless exercise. As an example, I made a well-rationalised edit to a page early this year, that was reverted on spurious grounds - 8 months later, exactly the same edit was made by one of the cognoscente, for the same stated reasons, and stood without question. Congratulations - it's now just a slightly different Britannica. Hank Stamper (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In order:
 * We should use reliable, independent sources to explain themes in Murray's work. As I said, your interpretation that this podcast reflects these themes is OR. It doesn't mean you are factually wrong, but it doesn't mean it belong in this article, either.
 * Murray is probably a reliable source for his own opinions, but this has limits. He is not, for example, an impartial source for those opinions. When articles include people's opinions based on WP:PRIMARY or otherwise flimsy sources, we functionally elevate the importance of those opinions. This is done based on our own editorial decision instead of via reliable sources. Sometimes this can be used as a form of back-door criticism such as when we highlight an obscure comment to prove a point, and sometimes it's flattery as when we present an opinion as though it were insightful. Either way, it's non-neutral. The way around this is through WP:IS. As a practical compromise, some articles attempt to use examples of writers' work to summarize their opinions. This is never ideal, and should not be seen as a precedent.
 * Your assessment of this as "gold" is part of the problem. If this lengthy podcast is mostly redundant with better sources, that doesn't actually make anything in it significant. It doesn't mean it isn't significant either. The existence of a flimsy source proves nothing.
 * It may or may not be an accurate interpretation, but it's still an interpretation. It's not just about how factual this is, it's also about whether or not it is significant. By interpreting it here, you are presuming that this is important enough to summarize, but reliable sources do not support this presumption.
 * Giving special treatment to people's comments about Wikipedia merely because this is Wikipedia would be non-neutral. Clearly, we cannot be entirely impartial, but we should still stick to reliable, independent sources to decide if this is really important for the article itself. Murray's apparent inability to change this article to his liking may or may not be a reflection on Wikipedia's quality, but this podcast isn't a reliable source for that anyway, even if he were talking about some other website. There are many places Murray could go (Contact us/Article subjects, Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Autobiography, Biographies of living persons, etc.) but the article itself obviously isn't the place to explain that to him.
 * Eric Weinstein's podcast is not a particularly reliable source, and his chat with Murray is not an independent source for Murray's views. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (a tertiary source which summarizes other sources), not a news outlet, and your hypothetical is no different. If he advocated for executing people, sources would cover it, and if they didn't, this wouldn't be the place to fix that oversight.
 * Grayfell (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Dec 2020 removal of new material
, I removed this edit[] on several grounds mostly related to WEIGHT and RS. Starting with the material under Views, the references to the Bridge Initiative Team is a primary source. As such it should be used with great caution especially since this is a BLP. There is very limited information on Middle East Eye in WP:RSN and the specific articles you used were opinion articles which again are problematic with respect to RS. If they are low on the RS list then they are also going to be limited in terms of WEIGHT. These are the reasons why the content under Views should be removed.

The next block of edits was sourced to The Guardian which is a respected source. However, that section was saying Murray was a favorite of Orban. Such claims have to be used carefully as they can create an association that may not be two way. Unless it is shown that Murray seeks out Orban's praise. That may be the case but that isn't what was in the Wiki article and again, the question of WEIGHT should be addressed if this sort of association is going to be included. The other source, intellinews also appears to really not be about Murray but about others. A better case needs to be made for WEIGHT.

The final addition was related to the PragerU video. That material is almost exclusively sourced to Realsludge. This again appears to be yet another newish cite. Without being able to find much information on Sludge it's hard to establish if the material is reliable or DUE. Given the extensive use of appeals to emotion in the article I don't think it looks good.

So basically all of this looks like marginally sourced material making disparaging claims about a BLP subject. That is something that should be avoided as a rule. Springee (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * For convenience, here are the sources in question:
 * I've adjusted the templates slightly, such as to include wikilinks to outlets.
 * Calling Bridge a primary source is not strictly accurate in this context. Bridge is a primary source only for info about Bridge itself, so it cannot be used to claim that its own report is significant or telling. In other words, the source doesn't show that the source is itself significant. However, an academic project like Bridge is exactly the kind of source we should be looking at. Any conclusions made by the source about Murray are not primary, it is WP:SECONDARY. Murray is not involved in the project, and the fact sheet is not an interview of Murray. The source cites many links to primary sources such as columns, videos, etc. The project's director is John Esposito, who as far as I know is a reputable figure in the field. This will need a closer look.
 * I don't recall having heard of Sludge before, but glancing at its about page, it may be a reliable outlet. My reading of the source is that it includes many directly cited facts and figures in a mostly dry style. Compared to almost every PragerU video I've ever seen, this article is remarkably restrained in it's "appeals to emotion" so I do not think this can be dismissed so easily either. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The academic project is self published, that makes it primary. If other sources talk about their findings in this context then it can be included.  Sludge had way too many appeals to emotion and crosses commentary with some facts.  That makes it a poor source (ignoring if we should give it any weight as a virtually unknown source.  The MME articles are Op-Ed this not ok in this context (and again questionable source in terms of weight).  The Guardian articles are not about Murray and the content added to the article is not due regardless of the quality of the sourcing.  Springee (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Georgetown University is publishing this project. You can argue that the project isn't notable, but this has very little to do with whether or not it is reliable. This is only self-published by the most narrow, or pedantic, definition.
 * I dispute that the Sludge source uses too many "appeals to emotion". Your individual claim that it's emotional is not sufficient to disqualify it as a reliable source. If you are looking for excuses to excluding unflattering sources, you are not engaging with those sources in good faith. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling Bridge a primary source is not strictly accurate in this context. Bridge is a primary source only for info about Bridge itself, so it cannot be used to claim that its own report is significant or telling. In other words, the source doesn't show that the source is itself significant. However, an academic project like Bridge is exactly the kind of source we should be looking at. Any conclusions made by the source about Murray are not primary, it is WP:SECONDARY. Murray is not involved in the project, and the fact sheet is not an interview of Murray. The source cites many links to primary sources such as columns, videos, etc. The project's director is John Esposito, who as far as I know is a reputable figure in the field. This will need a closer look.
 * I don't recall having heard of Sludge before, but glancing at its about page, it may be a reliable outlet. My reading of the source is that it includes many directly cited facts and figures in a mostly dry style. Compared to almost every PragerU video I've ever seen, this article is remarkably restrained in it's "appeals to emotion" so I do not think this can be dismissed so easily either. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The academic project is self published, that makes it primary. If other sources talk about their findings in this context then it can be included.  Sludge had way too many appeals to emotion and crosses commentary with some facts.  That makes it a poor source (ignoring if we should give it any weight as a virtually unknown source.  The MME articles are Op-Ed this not ok in this context (and again questionable source in terms of weight).  The Guardian articles are not about Murray and the content added to the article is not due regardless of the quality of the sourcing.  Springee (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Georgetown University is publishing this project. You can argue that the project isn't notable, but this has very little to do with whether or not it is reliable. This is only self-published by the most narrow, or pedantic, definition.
 * I dispute that the Sludge source uses too many "appeals to emotion". Your individual claim that it's emotional is not sufficient to disqualify it as a reliable source. If you are looking for excuses to excluding unflattering sources, you are not engaging with those sources in good faith. Grayfell (talk) 20:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Georgetown is self publishing the project. That makes it a primary source.  Sludge is clearly using emotional appeals and does not have a history of reliable reporting.  Remember we are including contentious claims about a BLP so we need to have higher standards not laxed ones.  Also, it isn't on me to prove the source is quality.  The accusation of bad faith is uncalled for and is not a valid argument.  Springee (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for listing the sources in detail Grayfell. I don't see how the deletion of the material from The Guardian and Middle East Eye can be justified at all. I don't understand the assertion that Bridge is a PS in this case or is not a RS - its an extensively referenced academic project. As for the Sludge article, a few thinks deserve to be mentioned:
 * the credentials of the writer, Alex Kotch, are impressive - he's written for The Guardian, Newsweek, International Business Times, VICE...
 * Kotch interviews Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Center of Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League, hardly a fringe or marginal group. Check this NPR interview where Pitcavage is described as an expert with decades of experience
 * Sludge is a newish source (founded 2018) but their "about" page looks highly professional and is unusually transparent about their funding model . The only current listed members of the Sludge team - it seems like Kotch has moved on - are Donald Shaw and David Moore  and both have quite extensive experience in political journalism

All the material I added related to Murray accords with the assessment of his work and beliefs in academic literature (and I believe that more of the academic assessment of Murray should be added to the page). I believe that the edits I made should be reinstated in their entirety Noteduck (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , your restoration of disputed content goes against good editing practice. Per NOCON this content should stay out until a consensus to include is established.  If nothing else, the MEE articles are Op-Ed and thus inappropriate for contentious claims about a BLP.  Sludge is also not appropriate.  Please self revert until we can reach a consensus.  Note that consensus doesn't mean "all agree" but currently we don't have a consensus for inclusion.  Springee (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I've started a BLPN discussion. There is simply too much wrong with the edits to use as is. That doesn't mean they can't be saved but straight up restoration was not the correct call. Springee (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

to be frank I am quite new to editing Wiki and might not always be familiar with correct coding, acronyms, etc but I'm doing my best. You haven't rebutted my points about the Sludge article and made a case against its inclusion. As for Georgetown "self-publishing" the Bridge Initiative - surely this standard would make most academic evidence invalid? As for the Middle East Eye source being "contentious", here is the excerpt: "Murray's criticisms of Islam have been described as a form of far-right entryism". A few pieces of academic commentary on Douglas add context to this: I.e., there is nothing particularly unusual or provocative about the Middle East Eye's claim - it reflects the mainstream academic assessment of Murray's views Noteduck (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Murray's views [are] entangled with the Far Right (p161)"
 * a claim that Murray "extemporizes on the basic theme" of the far-right Eurabia conspiracy theory (p218)
 * a description of Murray as a "radical European conservative" and a claim that is "one of the mainstream writers...that have adopted elements of the Eurabia concept" (pp37, 44)
 * in a quantitative study of "far right echo chambers, the Douglas Murray Archive is listed as a "far right" site (p29)
 * Noteduck, I understand you are new and I don't want to discourage you. Sometimes it takes some practice to get an idea what sources are good and bad or have sufficient WEIGHT for inclusion in articles.  This is also why I noted that it's best practice to not restore disputed content right away.  In this case one of three things could happen.  First, through discussion you may be able to convince enough editors that you are right and your edit will have consensus for inclusion.  It might take a few days but it will always look better if you don't restore it while the discussion is in process.  Second, we might hit a true no-consensus state and the content would have to stay out per NOCON.  Third, and this is often the best case, the objections can be reasonably addressed and we end up with a better final edit.  In this case I'm concerned about both the quality of sourcing and WEIGHT/DUE for inclusion.  If a weak source can be replaced with a strong one then the problem goes away and the net result is a better edit.  Take the Georgetown content.  This is a bit like when the ACLU says "Group X is bad".  We don't put that in X's article unless a RS says the view about X is signficant.  So if the New York Times (as an example) says Murray was profiled by GU then we would cite the NYT article and the GU material as, in effect, a notable opinion.  It's notable because the NYT tells us it is. As for Sludge, I have pointed out the issues with it.  First, the source is rather unknown so regardless of how correct it might be, WEIGHT comes into question.  Second, I'm not convinced it is a reliable source.  Sources that mix opinion and facts and use appeals to emotion should be treated more like an OpEd article.  It might be OK to use such a source to say this video had X million views but the fact that Sludge had an issue with the video wouldn't be significant per WEIGHT.  Also, when the article is primarily about something other than the article subject (Murray) but it is being used to say something about Murray, again we need to ask, is this a good source for that information and is the information DUE for inclusions.  If this is something significant about Murray then why isn't it appearing in a source with a stronger reputation?  You could raise the Sludge question at WP:RSN.  I wasn't able to find a good, previous discussion of the source.  Your other sources may be good for the claim you want to make but again, please be cautious.  We need to be careful when views are aligned vs their motives are aligned.  Two senators may oppose a new spending bill but that doesn't mean they oppose it for the same reasons.  One may feel it goes too far while the other says it doesn't go far enough.  Anyway, if this discussion pushes you to find better sourcing for the content then it's a win for all concerned.  I don't know much about Murray and I'm not interested in protecting the man.  My concern is with the way you were using sourcing to put negative things about the person in his BLP.   Springee (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, just going over the four links you provided: The first doesn't work for me.  I get an error.

The second does support the idea but again I am always reluctant to use something that mentions Murray only once and in context of a larger group of writers to make a negative claim about him. I don't have access to the 3rd so I can't see how the Murray content is being used other than it shows in a footnote. The 4th is not usable as it is not published. Also, just putting Murray in "far-right" doesn't really mean anything. There likely is enough here to work with but I think we would serve the reader much better if we could find examples rather than just say "X said Murray was Y". Instead, According to X, these views of Murray are similar to those of Y. Springee (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on the BLPN discussion there is not consensus for this material. An uninvolved editor found Sludge was not sufficient to established weight for the material being claimed here. Additionally, just as something from the SPLC is considered self published, so are materials from the Bridge Project. Springee (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

First, the sources: source 1 is James Rees, Catherine Needham, Julia Lux and John David Jordan, "Alt-Right ‘cultural purity’, ideology and mainstream social policy discourse: towards a political anthropology of ‘mainstremeist’ ideology," in Social Policy Review: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy (p161) The quote is there, as well as an extensive discussion of Murray and far-right discourse. Source 4 has been published on arXiv but is awaiting peer review - it certainly carries less weight than a peer-reviewed source but not no weight - and the point made is phrased in terms of "is argued", rather than speaking in Wiki's voice. The credentials of the authors are formidable.

There is never going to be complete consensus with a controversial figure like Murray, which is why I have taken care to include disclaimers like "is argued" and "X has said" rather than speaking in Wikipedia's voice. Your argument about the Bridge Initiative doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's a source bringing together an impressive team of academics and extensively refers to multiple third-party sources. If you want the Bridge Initiative source removed I'd like you to refer it to a source reliability discussion first. You still haven't addressed my points about the Sludge authors impressive journalistic credentials and the fact that the article consulted a reliable expert source from a storied mainstream outlet.

The mutual admiration between Murray and Orban is extensively documented and believe your point is pedantic but if need be I can find a source that focuses on Murray's repeated enthusiastic statements about Orban.

Frankly, I believe that the sources that have recently been added are being removed for ideological reasons rather than evidentiary ones. Anything that reflects the orthodox position in academic circles - that Murray is best described as either a far-right intellectual or an "entryist" or "mainstreamer" into far-right politics - is being unjustly removed. Just because these sources do not concord with Murray's ideological self-identification does not make them unreliable. I believe the edits should be reinstated in their entirety, and that the sentence Murray has been described as a conservative,[5] neoconservative[6][7] and a critic of Islam.[8] should be amended to add "far-right". As for the argument that terminology and Murray's political classification is irrelevant, I think this is nonsense - why does Wiki then have pages like Category:Far-right politics and Category:English_far-right_politicians after all? Noteduck (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Noteduck, Wikipedia editing is not about righting great wrongs. Douglas Murray, as a living person, should be covered in a fair and neutral way to reflect how he is discussed by reliable sources. Sludge is a two man band and therefore is a self-published source, and the arXiv paper is definitely a self published source. Regardless of the authors credentials, per WP:BLPSPS, self published sources should never be used for claims about living persons. I don't agree with Springee's argument that SPLC is a self-published source, in the same way that something by the ADL isn't the SPLC is a reputable organisation with a reputation for expertise in hate groups. The bridge initiative is directly funded by Saudi Arabia and therefore may be undue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the "fair and neutral" comment, which is why I have not added anything about Murray that is not supported by evidence. Even if we reject the arXiv paper, there are still three academic sources (which haven't been added to the page - they are simply being mentioned because they bolster Sludge's point) which make the same point about Murray's political messaging. Can you explain what you mean by the "directly funded by Saudi Arabia" comment? As for the points about Sludge, I've addressed them here Noteduck (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe the argument in favour of Sludge being an RS in this context has been vindicated on the Noticeboard. Please have a look. Absent further rebuttals I believe the deleted edits should be restored soon
 * No, the notice board discussion had not reached a consensus of reliable also Chetsford's comment notes concern related to weight. Since this is a BLP weight is a big concern. Springee (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Article level tags
Why are dubious and accusatory warnings being placed at the lead of this article without prior discussion and agreement? I suggest they are removed quickly to avoid accusations of bias against the subject. Conan The Librarian (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

, absent any talk page explanation I support the removal of these recently added tags. I haven't followed this article so if there is a prior discussion please point to it so other editors can know what needs to be addressed. Springee (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the tags as neither editor had defended them. For one this was the only edit in 6 months.  For that other they this was their last edit before retiring.  Absent any started reason for the tags they should be removed. Note that the tags may actually be correct but per the tags themselves there needs to be an accompanying justification on the talk page. Springee (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Far right themes in Murray's work
"In recent years, similar themes are found in the writings of celebrated British neoconservative author, journalist and public intellectual Douglas Murray. In his bestselling book The Strange Death of Europe (2017),17 Murray echoes many of Huntington’s postulations, telling a story of liberal elite betrayal, where the western political establishment has ignored the national/civilizational interests of its populations through (1) support for mass migration from non-European nations, while not addressing Europe’s negative birth rates; and (2) devaluing and ignoring Europe’s Christian culture and unique civilizational identity. In the book, Murray (2017: 239) describes far-right anti-Islam street protest movements such as PEGIDA and EDL in a sympathetic tone and criticizes the public condemnation these groups have received from their liberal governments. Murray also attempts to rescue the legacy of Powell and Raspail by awarding a prophetic wisdom to their sensationalist warnings. Acclaim for Murray’s thought has been widespread, and ranges from liberal French public intellectual Bernard Henri-Levy, who claimed him to be ‘one of the most important public intellectuals today’, to authoritarian anti-immigrant hardliners such as Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who went so far as to promote The Strange Death of Europe on his Facebook page in Spring 2018... Murray’s book [The Madness of Crowds] remodels a much older theory of so-called ‘cultural Marxism’, which has long history in far-right thought."

"With regard to the EDL, there is a reluctance by many officials and advisors to recognise the group as a significant threat. For example, in April 2011, Adrian Tudway, the police’s National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism, wrote in an email to Muslim groups that the EDL is ‘not extreme right wing as a group’.32 Similarly, in January 2011, Douglas Murray, the associate director of the Henry Jackson Society, which influences the government on national security policy, stated that, in relation to the EDL: ‘If you were ever going to have a grassroots response from non-Muslims to Islamism, that would be how you’d want it, surely.’33 Both these statements suggest that ‘counterjihadist’ ideologies, through reworking far-right ideology and appropriating official discourse, are able to evade categorisation as a source of far-right violence."

"Ye’Or’s Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis (2005) is the canonical work of the genre (Bangstad 2013; Larsson 2012), but extemporizations on her basic theme can be found in the work of many conservative writers during the late 2000s and 2010s, such as Melanie Phillips, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, Christopher Caldwell, Douglas Murray and, more recently, Alt-Right-linked figures such as Lauren Southern and Raheem Kassam. The conclusive differentiator between counter-jihadist and more mainstream conservative laments about Western decline is the former’s decidedly conspiratorial framing..."

"Media pundit, journalist, and conspiracy entrepreneur Douglas Murray is a prime example of illustrating the influence of an ‘organic intellectual’. Murray has written passionately in support of British fascist Tommy Robinson (Murray, 2018) and describes Islam as an “opportunistic infection” (Hasan, 2013) linked to the “strange death of Europe” (Murray, 2017a). Murray’s ideas are not only entangled with the far-right (working class or otherwise), but with wider social connections. He is organic not to the working class but to the middle-class and his books and comments therefore are more influential among politicians from a similar background as well as other intellectuals, like biologist Richard Dawkins (2013b) who comments that Murray “sees through David Cameron's ingratiating Islamophilia.” Militant atheism, of which Dawkins is the leading figure, has played a preeminent role in promoting and scientising crypto-racist narratives of religious believers as a savage, ignorant threat to white cultural purity (Arel, 2017; Gray, 2018; Robbins, 2013) Both Dawkins and Murray are atheists, yet both invoke the notion of ‘cultural Christianity’ to underpin their claims that Islam is a threat to progressive ‘European values’ such as LGBT and women’s rights, as indeed do several European far-right groups. Murray, for example, has provided support for European far-right activist Geert Wilders on the grounds of his putative defence of European liberalism (Murray, 2017b)... In the UK, ‘immigration conspiracy’ allegations have focused on assertions of a Labour Party conspiracy to change the cultural face of Britain (Murray, 2017;..."

"Popular commentators and public figures among the [EDL] activists that I have met include Geert Wilders,  Robert  Spencer,  Melanie  Philips,  Andrew  Gilligan,  Douglas  Murray,  Pat  Condell,  and  some  of  the  commentators  who  contribute  to  forums  like  Alan  Lake’s  Four  Freedoms  website."

"In the post‐Enoch Powell era, the UK has evolved a broad, cross‐party consensus that maintains that British citizenship and identity is not defined ethnically. The white nationalist right like Roger Scruton and Douglas Murray reject that."

(t · c)  buidhe  22:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct that this material belongs on Murray's page. This is not a fringe assessment of Murray's work and views but the consensus in academic assessments of Murray and much of the news media as well. Unfortunately, in my opinion every source that does not accord with Murray's self-definition as a moderate conservative is being removed from this page - see the discussion here. Given that this page has a history of COI and other issues this is particularly concerning. See also There should be a separate sub-heading "far-right themes in Murray's work" that can collate the wealth of academic and journalistic evidence on Murray and his connections to the far-right Noteduck (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Noteduck, those are inappropriate accusations. The content in question was not removed for the reasons you claim.  They were removed because they were inappropriately sourced per Wikipedia's BLP policies.  Springee (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

PragerU material
The PragerU material starts with an WP:OR opinion saying the video produced by Murray "led to considerable discussion and controversy." That is a subjective assessment and not one directly supported by the provided sources. Those sources may be critical of the video but they don't support the wider claim here. Ignoring questions about Sludge as a DUE source for the moment, it is reasonable to say, "the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism Mark Pitcavage, who stated that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric". ". I think we need to be very careful about using the opinion/commentary of the Sludge author given the limited information on Sludge as a source. I will acknowledge that Bridge does cite sludge in their PragerU write up. However, Bridge is a primary source and the only Murray specific material is the very general (he did a video and a book) or cites Sludge this Brige citation should not be included. It's probably worth asking at RSN if SLPC can be self cited for a specific claim about a video by an author. As with other special interest groups there is always a question of "do we need an independent source to lead us to the information first?". When the information is generalized the answer is typically no. When the information is specific to an individual I think the consensus is typically yes but I could be mistaken. Springee (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)